Incomplete reporting of activity behaviour interventions in school-based research: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials published 2015-2020

Introduction: To date, systematic reviews including research published up until 2015, which describe staff training delivered in school-based interventions targeting changes in students’ activity behaviour, have consistently reported insufficient information about staff training. Complete descriptions of the behaviour change techniques that target teachers (and other actors) involved in implementation are crucial to interpret student outcomes and replicate effective interventions. Given relevant guidelines to promote complete reporting of interventions were published in 2014, the quality may have improved in recent years. We therefore critically appraised the evidence around quality of reporting on staff training programmes in school-based activity behaviour interventions, published 2015-2020. Methods: We systematically searched seven databases from January 2015 to May 2020 for randomised controlled trials of teacher-led school-based activity behaviour interventions that included any form of staff training. Pilot, feasibility and small-scale (≤100 students) trials were excluded. We searched for information about training from any study output identified (e.g. protocols, process evaluations, outcome evaluations, trial registries, study websites). We used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TiDieR) checklist, a reporting guideline of the minimum set of items considered essential for intervention description and replication, to determine complete reporting. Results: We identified 183 study outputs reporting on 53 training programmes delivered within 51 randomised controlled trials (median student sample size: 779; interquartile range: 361-1397). Complete information, in which all TiDieR items were reported, was only available for one training programme (<2% of training programmes delivered). Intervention descriptions largely focused on intervention(s) delivered to students. While some study authors reported using checklists to describe student-targeted interventions; none reported using checklists to describe those aimed at teachers or other implementation actors (e.g. parents). As of May 2022, of the journals that published articles included in our review (n=33), only one explicitly requested that trial authors submit reporting checklists for all intervention components (though some did request at least one reporting checklist was submitted). Discussion: Our findings suggests that poor reporting of activity behaviour interventions in school-based research remains a widespread issue, despite the availability of guidelines to promote complete reporting. Collective action is required to facilitate much-needed progress in the field. We describe our efforts to change reporting practices, including contacting journal editors, calling on them to revise their submission guidelines. Registration: PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020180624 Impact and applications to the field: Complete descriptions of all interventions under evaluation is needed to build an evidence base that is fit for purpose to promote physical activity in schools. We report on the impact of contacting journal editors to drive important progress in reporting practices and intervention evaluation research. Conflict of interest statement: TH is the lead author of the TiDieR checklist guideline. EvS is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Physical Activity and Health, and was previously Member of the Editorial Board at IJBNPA. All other co-authors have no conflicts of interest of relevance to the submission of this abstract.